occult statistics

Occult statistics are statistics used as the handmaiden of occult theorizing, in much
the same way that philosophy was used by theology during medieval times, viz., to justify
beliefs in supernatural beings and occult forces.

Parapsychologists, astrologers,
theologians, and others who seek anomalies to guide them to
transpersonal wisdom and insight into the true nature of the universe, are now able
to use computers to do
extremely complex statistical analyses of monumental masses of data. When
they find a statistically significant correlation between or among variables, they are
extremely impressed and consider the discovery to be proof of the occult or the
supernatural. To the occult statistician there is no such thing as a
spurious
correlation.

For example,
William
Dembski'sThe Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities
is said to "provide a mathematical foundation for the types of statistical inferences
parapsychologists use to identify paranormal phenomena. In particular, the book shows how
to deal with statistical experiments whose p-values are extremely small (like those that
regularly come up in parapsychology experiments). This work is clearly relevant to Carl
Jung's idea of synchronicity. [It] promises to put synchronicity
on a solid scientific footing" (Rabi Gupta, personal correspondence).

Likewise, The
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research program
(closed in 2007) led for nearly thirty years by Robert Jahn,
Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, claimed that in their experiments
where human operators tried to use their minds to influence a variety of mechanical,
optical, acoustical, and fluid devices, they got results that were not
likely due to
chance and could "only be attributed to the influence of the human
operators."

Legions of parapsychologists, led by such generals as
Gary Schwartz
and Dean Radin (and
his love of meta-analysis), have also appealed
to statistical anomalies as proof of ESP. Statistician Jessica Utts
of the University of California at Davis gave her imprimatur to U.S. government
studies of ESP and remote viewing. Many occultists have
claimed that certain dreams must be clairvoyant
and cannot be explained by coincidence because they defy the laws of probability.

Obviously, this list could go on
forever; it could include the Bible
Code and various proofs of the existence of a god on the grounds of improbability that
chance could explain the nature of the universe or some complex aspect of it, such as the
genetic code.

Skeptics are not very impressed by statistical anomalies generated by those in quest of
occult forces. Sometimes parapsychological colleagues have discovered that statistics were generated by
fraudulent means, e.g., the work of Walter J. Levy at Rhine's
Institute of Parapsychology (Williams 191, 319). The
history of ESP research is a paradigm of dishonesty
and incompetence (Rawcliffe, Randi), though it should be mentioned that the
two major incidents of fraud (Levy and that of S. G. Soal), though suspected
by skeptics, were uncovered and reported by true believers. Skeptics have noted many times while investigating
the statistical claims of paranormal researchers that there are often significant problems
with subjective validation, confirmation
bias, optional starting and stopping, the clustering illusion, the
regressive fallacy, etc.

Sometimes the variables being correlated are ambiguous or vaguely defined, if defined
at all, so that practically anything can count in support of the occult hypothesis. What
is a "great" athlete or a "rebel"? Sometimes
the methods of finding patterns are deceptive and inappropriate, e.g., finding hidden
messages in texts. As John Ruscio notes, "If you look in a fantastic number of
places, and count anything that you stumble upon as supportive evidence, you are
guaranteed to discover meaning where none exists" (45).

Finally, skeptics are unimpressed with artificially evoked statistical anomalies
because such anomalies are expected to occur with some frequency given the vast number of
trials that are made.

Correlating just a couple dozen variables with one another will produce a
matrix containing nearly 300 correlation coefficients. By convention, results that occur
at a level expected by chance just 5 percent of the time are called "statistically
significant." We can therefore expect about fifteen spuriously significant
correlations within every matrix of 300 (Ruscio, 45).

Each of those spurious correlations is a temptation to see causal connections where
there are none and to engage in post hoc theorizing to explain
non-existent mysterious forces.

Finally, many of the
alleged statistical anomalies discovered by parapsychologists may be due to
their equipment and methods. Some use machines that they call "random event
generators." However, "It is not clear that any of these machines is truly
random. Indeed, it is generally believed that there are no truly random
machines. It may be that lack of randomness only begins to show up after
many trials" (Park 2000: 199). The data from psi experiments should remind
us that statistical significance does not imply importance. Science that
claims to have identified barely detectable causal agents observed near the
threshold of sensation, which are nevertheless asserted to have been
detected with great accuracy and be of great significance, is one of the
signs of what Irving Langmuir called
pathological science and
Bob Park calls voodoo
science. As
Ernest Rutherford once said: “If your result needs a statistician then
you should design a better experiment.”*

The Dark Art of Statistical
Deception The tendency of academics, politicians and pundits
to generate ... numerical falsehoods from data — and the
tendency of the public to believe the results — is a phenomenon
cleverly explored in the new book “Proofiness: The Dark Arts of
Mathematical Deception,” by Charles Seife.